Ustwo

Its very dangerous on many many levels to say that morals do not belong in science.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Telluride

I don't see how this is akin to discrimination. Even if it is, I support the right to private discrimination.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Marvelous Marv

I like the second part; don't like the first.

I respectfully disagree. I think an OB should be able to refuse to do abortions, for one.


That sounds fine. As you recall, I had a big problem with the pharmacist not returning the prescription.

Marvelous Marv

That's quite a blanket statement about the doctors having insufficient training. And it's wrong a great deal of the time.

astrahl

The standard MD understands most medications, but when it comes to interactions and knowing exactly HOW they work...I'll prefer to trust a pharmacist, thanks.

And while morals DO belong in science, if it means withholding medications simply because of personal beliefs...that is NOT cool. I should not have to explain to a pharmacist that the BCPs I was prescribed when I was 17 were not for sexual activity, but for dysmenorrhea. How humiliating to have to justify that?? Deciding what to give out and to whom is feeding a god complex we don't need in medicine. Yes, many MDs have a god complex too, but that is not who we are talking about now.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

Marvelous Marv

That's certainly your option, but there are many MDs (endocrinologists come to mind) who have a specialized knowledge that is almost certainly lacking in most pharmacists.

That sounds like an argument for allowing MDs to dispense medications.

Locobot

While there is a necessary place for morals in the application of science esp. re: human beings, there is no place for religious dogma in a health system, especially one as already fucked as the United States'. That is what we're actually talking about here, the application of religious beliefs to the health and well-being of individuals.

With all due exceptions, note: endocrinologists, doctors simply do not have the pharmaceutical knowledge to dispense drugs without proper oversight. A pharmacist's knowledge of potential drug complications is vastly superior to what the average doctor receives in med. school. Mistakes are caught by pharmacists on a regular basis...deal.

I agree that pharmacists allowing their personal beliefs intrude on the treatment of patients is a major problem that needs to be dealt with, but this solution is just more gasoline on the fire. Pharmacists are in such high demand that employers are unlikely to fire them for something such as this, despite that it is an obvious dereliction.

The only solution I see is to criminalize the refusal of treatment on the basis of moral reasons alone. If a state allows someone a license to dispense drugs and they refuse to fufill the requirements of their position, for instance by refusing contraception on the basis of their own personal religious beliefs then they should have their license taken away, at the the very least. But no, instead we see our elected "leaders" passing "conscious" laws across the country to protect this exact behavior.

I know that as soon as a "conscious" law is passed in my state I plan to 1) join the local christian scientologist church 2)enroll in a pharmacy program. I'll never have to work again and it will be illegal to fire me! Of course while I'm in school I can work at Wendy's and refuse to fill orders for SUV-driving fatasses on the basis of basic moral values. Watch how quick the cops get called in such cases, won't they be surprised when the po-po comes to my defense under grandest irresponsibility of all, the conscious law!

[edit spellins']

Paq

Seriously, we've had doctors and pharmacists for...oh...quite some time now...

and why is this becoming an issue NOW?? whatever happened to 1, doing your job, 2, doing it well, 3, enjoying your job.

I just don't see how this is just starting to crop up. I mean, it's just sad that society has come to this...

If you can't morally do your job, then find another, period. I am with Locobot...if the conscience law passes, i'm just going to start refusing to do just about anything based on my moral beliefs. "oh, you want a salad with high fat dressing..no" "oh, i'm sorry, i'm a hippy and you are burning gasoline, i'm not going to repair your car, even though i'm a mechanic" "oh, you want fries with that...sorry, i'm not getting them for you bc you're just gonna clog your arteries with you" "Oh, i'm sorry, you're a godless heathen, and i don't think you should be allowed to live, so i am not going to give you CPR"

hey, this could be quite fun, come to think of it...

__________________
Live.

Chris

Marvelous Marv

Can't agree with your philosophy. It sounds the same as, "You don't like your working conditions? You want a safe environment? Find another job, then."

That's the beauty of a free market system, though. It should allow you to do all of the things you said, provided you, as the business owner, are preparted to take the financial hit that will ensue.

It's why you don't find racism toward blacks among store owners in Harlem, too. People with money all start to look the same.

And, in an only marginally related note, it's why Oprah's ratings pitch about Hermes and discrimination is so full of shit.

If you don't know anything about that, it's a point in your favor.

Paq

no, my philosophy is more of, "Don't like your working conditions, can't morally do your job? find another" If you feel unsafe dispensing PRESCRIBED medicines to someone based on your moral objections, then you are in the wrong field. if you feel you have the right to withhold my prescription bc it conflicts with your moral objections, you are in the wrong field. This has nothing to do with your safe working conditions or anyone's health, this has to do with you pushing your moral agenda upon me, which i do not appreciate.

You not being you of course, but you as a general pharmacist didn't wanna sound offensive

__________________
Live.

Chris

Locobot

This statement is so grossly out of touch and wrong as to be laughable. You do know that the basic stereotype of Harlem store owners is Asian and extremely racist toward african americans?

Telluride

I don't see how anyone's moral agenda is being forced on you. Go to a different pharmacy. If anything, it's the owner of the pharmacy who is being targeted by the moral agendas of others when being told that he/she has no control over what products or services are offered.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Paq

that's just it, the next pharmacy for some people is hundreds of miles away. I happen to live near 4, but i know people who have one for the entire county...

they are there to do a job. no offense, but leave the high horse and morality at home and do the job or find another one you feel more comfortable

now, maybe i am thinking more along the lines of pharmacist within a chain type drug store and not say, jimbob's pharmacy of bumfark, north dakota. I can see how you say he is being forced to abide by someone else's morality, but in that case, i would be more favorable for a doctor to be able to dispense medications. Namely, there should be a place for a patient to get needed medications. Could you imagine the uproar if no pharmacist would fill viagra prescriptions based on moral objections?

__________________
Live.

Chris

jorgelito

This starts to sound like slippery slope stuff. Ordinarily I would tend to agree with the free-market principle (at least in theory) but what if firefighters refuse to save the houses of gay people cause homosexuality is immoral to them? Why should a police officer help a muslim especially if their opposed to "terrorism"? You see where this could lead?

Or how about, police and firemen refusing to save the lives of people in a fire-bombed abortion clinic cause you know, baby-killers are against their morals. I suppose the main difference or argument could be "life-threatening" situations but then, that is still a slippery slope. Who's to say what medication is vital or not or what have you, like in the birth control example above. In theory, the pharmacist does not have access to all the facts. Maybe the person "needs" the medical abortion due to rape, or it's life-threatening to the mother. We can't just start playing judge and jury now can we?

Or you could patronize the next pharmacy that is willing to fill your prescription and maybe the other one will lose money big-time. Then again, are these the types of issues we want to leave up to the "free" market?

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

jorgelito

Maybe it's all about choice. Choice is good. If you belive in pro-environment, you can make a choice in buying products that fit your beliefs. I dunno, sumthin like that...

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

FoolThemAll

It's really not a matter of a high horse. It's a matter of not doing what one considers wrong. No horse necessary.

Owners should be able to fire pharmacists because of such moral convictions. They should also be able to retain such pharmacists, too. No one has the right to these medications, it's a product that someone has to be willing to provide.

What if there were no pharmacists in a particular county who were willing to dispense the product? Would you rather they all lost their licenses, leaving the county without a pharmacy?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Paq

what good is a pharmacist that won't do his job?

jorgelito said it best, it's just a slippery slope and one htat i can see being very dangerous for everyone involved.

__________________
Live.

Chris

Gilda

Some seem to be missing the point that this isn't a liscense for doctors to dispense any medication they like any time they like. It's a narrowly defined set of circumstances, in which the local pharmacies are refusing to dispense certain medications for moral reasons. The pharmaceutical check is in place--the pharmacist in this case has reviewed the prescription and refused to fill it.

Elphaba

Thank you Gilda, for joining in. I appreciate it.

FoolThemAll

What good is a pharmacist that won't do his job by prescribing birth control pills?

What good is a doctor that won't do his job by performing an abortion?

Quite a bit of good in both cases. Just not the particular good that you're looking for. They still provide many useful services to society.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Paq

just wait till some pharmacist thinks that playing god with man made medicines is morally reprehensible

while i don't quite get the doctor who performs abortions is useless argument, mainly bc there are doctors who specialize in abortions vs gen practitioners, but anyway...

and i think gilda cleared up my main objection for allowing dr's to dispense meds...

so as of now, Good for doctors, get those lovely bcp's out

__________________
Live.

Chris

FoolThemAll

Well, now, what would be the point of such a pharmacist? How would he ever get employment? You don't need a license not to prescribe stuff; an employer could grab up a kid for minimum wage for that task.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Paq

exactly. at what point does the pharmacist get to decide what meds he does or does not dispense. Considering he may be the only pharmacist in the county, that gives him a considerable amount of power to hammer his morality onto everyone...

I'm still in favor of giving dr's the right to dispense these 'controversial' meds. like i said earlier, wait till a series of pharmacists stop dispensing viagra and see just how fast people react...

__________________
Live.

Chris

FoolThemAll

At every point.

I'm not understanding your 'exactly'. There'd be no need for regulations against anti-medicine pharmacists because no one would ever have a reason for hiring them.

I'd react just the same way if viagra was the prescription in question.

I maintain that they are doing their jobs. Just not precisely the way that you'd like them to.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Paq

the 'exactly' refers to the whole, "Well, now, what would be the point of such a pharmacist?"

exactly. what is the point of a pharmacist that will not fill prescriptions that pose no physical harm nor have any physical reaction with any other medications. to me, that is a person who only chooses to do half a job..

If they can't morally do the job, then they need to get...another...job.
period

__________________
Live.

Chris

FoolThemAll

The fraction would actually be much closer to 1 than to 1/2.

And the point would be that fraction.

I'm saying that there wouldn't be a point in a 0, in one who prescribed nothing. That doesn't translate into a 999/1000th pharmacist being pointless.

Perhaps employers who keep on these pharmacists with moral objections disagree with your job description. And employers have the final say in what their employees' jobs entail. Period.

edit: As long as job tasks are not endangering of anyone, of course. Which is actually why I agree on more than one level with the pharmacists in question.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.